James Hendler: OWL Full was the result of a major consensus-reaching compromise. One group wanted OWL DL, another group didn't. Inverse datatype properties were a key issue -- one group would object to including it, one group would object to not including it. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

James Hendler: The key thing WebOnt decided, which is perhaps open to discussion, vocabulary terms like owl:X would be in both languages, although perhaps with restrictions on each. Each side had exactly the same vocabulary terms covered.

Jeremy Carroll: I felt what happened with OWL DL and Full, had to do with two different groups coming together. Peter represents the DL academic community, which had a strong idea where it was coming from. Meanwhile, there was an RDF community. Both communities can gain real insights from each other, but there are arguments and difference. Like any marriage, both sides have some good points and some bad points.

Bijan Parsia: It's a conceptual error to regard OWL Full as a unitary phenomenon. There are a lot of different parts to it, and they each have their own story. EG classes as instances. Very different uses cases. EG annotations. ("my property was made by me, and modified on some date" -- different from modeling.)

Bijan Parsia: I think there is an OWL Full is because there was to be a gap between what some people wanted and what some implementors (doing complete implemtnations) could do.

James Hendler: The path to the split was important. A lot of the design on the DL and Full sides were influenced by what happened when. We have the option to rationalize it now.

Bijan Parsia: I'll note that the RDF semantics were also being designed (in a sort of death march) and "fitting" with that was seen as a requirement

James Hendler: A lot depended on the temporal ordering of events. We now have the option to rationalize it.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Compatibility with RDF was requirement, and yet RDF Semantics weren't designed yet. If the ordering had happened differently, then the semantics of RDF might have been different. The FOL view of the world and the Triple view of the world were split. Once RDF settled on the Triple view, we had to live with it.

Bijan Parsia: But here's a good example...primarily the lack of DLnessin foaf is use of inverseFunctionalDatatype properties which is perfectly first order.

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to talk briefly about foaf and to ask if we want OWL-FULL to mean not OWL-DL and to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features

Jeremy Carroll: People inside HP and out find great use for "reasonable" use of OWL-Full, eg subclass list vocabulary, but NOT "messing with the furniture". Having a rule engine as an underlying engine is important. [??]

Alan Ruttenberg: FOAF deviates from OWL DL in a few places. Inverse-functional-property on strings (eg mailbox hashes), and annotations on properties.

Alan Ruttenberg: I heard different descriptions of OWL full: Everything not in OWL DL. Or in terms of features. People don't often talk about OWL Full as a language with this and that features. Mostly they say they are in OWL full because they are not in OWL DL. Many people just want to use one or two features, does OWL full have to be a "whole" language?

Michael Schneider: Great point of OWL full: accepts every RDF graph; people can have standard RDF data as used by SPARQL and incrementally add semantics to certain but not all properties. This gives you more flexibility than you have in OWL DL

Zakim: jeremy, you wanted to talk about architectural role

Jeremy Carroll: One of the raisons d'etre of OWL Full is architectural. The RDF view puts semantics on top of triples, and 'semantic extensions' of RDF allow for multiple additional semantics to be layered on top. OWL Full is one of these. OWL Full includes OWL DL, I don't much like it being described as not OWL DL.

Bijan Parsia: I didn't understand the last bit...what's the power play?

Jeremy Carroll: my recent comments on public owl dev suggest that use of 'not' to define primary categories can be a statement of power

Jeremy Carroll: e.g craft = art that is not fine art, is a statement about the economic interests in fine art

James Hendler: My users don't care about the semantics; they work operationally; they don't want to use OWL per se; they find OWL useful for some things they are doing; this applies to many people from the web 3.0 community. Using OWL DL forces them to use things they don't care about

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Do we only want an RDF syntax for OWL 1.1, or do we want also a semantics for the triples? If people only want syntax, they don't care about the semantics of the triples

Bijan Parsia: If users don't care in the semantics, do you see harm in assigning a semantics that is .... [??]

Zakim: jhendler, you wanted to clarify re: "semantics"

James Hendler: it's not that users don't care about the semantics; they care about the semantics of, say, same-as. But they don't care about provably getting their reasoners right. An axiomatic semantics may serve that community better than a model-theoretic semantics

Bijan Parsia: this is a presentational issue; I was asking for the actual semantics

James Hendler: It is important to get the semantics right, but people do it at their own risk; a good example is linking to another ontology without declaring the type.

Zhe Wu: some users are using OWL full features such as same as; they care about the semantics, have an intuitive understanding;

Jeff Pan: So the users care the semantics of some constructs but not others

Bijan Parsia: I don't think we have time on the telecon, but I'll add that I'd like to have correct and complete implementations of the language. If people write custom subset reasoners, we need to spec some level of interop between the ad hoc ones and the ones aiming to be complete. People move between the two types of systems quite a bit.

Alan Ruttenberg: we need to define a vocabulary, and a minimal operational semantics; a DL + feature semantics was proposed, without saying how all work together

Ivan Herman: I think we need to have a clear view of what the alternatives are before voting. We need a feeling what it costs in terms of time/energy. What would an operational semantics mean? We need this before making decisions.

James Hendler: I believe that if long term (maybe not out of this WG) we see a path that takes us to "one OWL" it would be a big win

ACTION: Alan to describe what he means by a "feature at a time" semantics

ACTION: hendler will describe an approach to an "operational semantics" for OWL Full

Peter Patel-Schneider: owl 1.0 was existential semantics; whether people implemented or not is separate issue

ACTION: pfps send out proposal for minimal change for issue-3

James Hendler: fwiw, since we've put off the Use Cases document it would help us non-logicians (or old fashioned logic types) if proposals for things like this could include some common sense use cases

James Hendler: boy I wish we had a use case or two to anchor this description to real world cases...

Michael Schneider: we could allow application to datatype expressions, as long as they are "compatible" with the facet

Ian Horrocks: Let's do something simple; hard to imagine that in application we need more than basic facets on basic datatypes; solution like in OWL 1.0: this is what we support, people can go beyond that but we don't spec it